Learning Environment by the Future Society: Development of … · 2019. 2. 11. · (SNiP) of the 60's [27] and 70‘s [28] started strictly ... St. 8, Palanga, 1981–1982, ... According

Scientific Journal of Latvia University of Life Sciences and Technologies

Landscape Architecture and Art, Volume 13, Number 13

105

DOI: 10.22616/j.landarchart.2018.13.12

Learning Environment by the Future

Society: Development of School

Grounds in Lithuania

Liutauras Nekrošius, Indrė Ruseckaitė, Edita Riaubienė,

Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Lithuania

Abstract. This paper presents particular aspects of educational function of the schoolyard, and argues that such a

space could be used for educating the young generation, collaboration and interaction in creating the living

environment.

Research of Lithuanian schools’ architecture during the last few decades has indicated the practice of using the

school courtyard that could be described as “Forgotten Space”. Education scholars pay exclusive attention to the

interaction between learning and playing. Urban gardening, environmental monitoring, design-build studios become

integral parts of secondary or even primary education. These activities need proper environment.

The majority of Lithuanian youth attends schools built in the interwar and soviet periods that rarely fit the up-to-

date paradigm of education and spatial needs. This makes the school environment problematic but, at the same time,

perfect as a transformation laboratory for communities as the non-generic “commissioners”, potential driving force

of such actions. Architects, landscape architects, urban designers and planners occasionally look at the cooperation

with communities as an obstacle or formal “must”. Since 2014, the Faculty of Architecture, VGTU, started to act as a

catalyst activating discussions and alternative visions for changes of school spaces, mostly anticipating that the youth

(students and school-children) involved would accustom themselves to active and constant co-creation and

maintenance of their environment.

The overview of the school grounds development in Lithuania during the last century was performed by

consistent analysis of different functions. The study of each possible function of school outdoor area was done by

applying the three-aspect correlation method: the education theory, legal building regulations and school

environment practice. The study of school ground as the contemporary collectively developed playscape presented

the results of experimental practices on participatory design and community engagement.

Keywords: school grounds, landscape architecture of schools, educational environment, outdoor learning,

participatory design, community engagement

Introduction

Contemporary urban development is increasingly

based on inhabitants’ participation [1, 9, 12], but the

communities desperately need encouragement,

support and know-how manuals from experts,

including architects and landscape architects.

Nowadays, the majority of young people in Lithuania

attend schools that were built during the interwar and

soviet periods. It is understandable, but still

disappointing, because this environment can hardly fit

the up-to-date educational paradigm and meet

contemporary spatial needs. Although it is emerging

as a major problem, but at the same time provides for

the opportunities to use the school environment as

perfect transformation laboratory. It is anticipated that

the youth (students and schoolchildren) involved

would accustom themselves to active and constant co-

creation and maintenance of their environment.

The objective of the research is to discover the

particular aspects of educational function in the

school grounds and to highlight the actual methods

how to achieve the up-to-date learning environment

by involving students and schools’ communities

(teachers, pupils, parents) into the environment

developing process. Participatory design mode of

operation has an ambitious goal – to educate the

young generation to become the co-creators of their

living environment.

The assignments of the paper are to make the review

of the centenary development of the school grounds in

Lithuania (1918–2018) observing the theoretical views,

legal instructions and architectural practices; to analyse

the results of experimental research and participatory

practices oriented towards the modernisation of outside

learning spaces; to highlight the proven methods and

tools for creating or converting up-to-date educational

landscape.

This paper is a part of the larger research on the

educational architecture. In it, we focus on one aspect –

schools’ landscape, which becomes more and more

important in the realm of contemporary educational

theory. The study contributes to further understanding of

Lithuania’s educational environment development from

the restoration of the statehood 100 years ago, through

the soviet occupation period and up to these days.

The study provides useful insights on the methods

and tools that can be used in various contexts for

community engagement in the development of

the built environment.



106

Materials and Methods

The object of the research is the school’s outdoor

space, which is understood as the landscape

architectural and educational object. Mainly it can be

named as a school plot, area, yard, playground or

ground. The most comprehensive and appropriate for

this research concept is that of the school ground. It

can be defined as an area used for school functions

(physical and mental education, recreation,

representation, service). The structure of the object is

dualistic, links the matter and thought, form and

content, which directly refers to the landscape

architecture and education. The object varies

depending on the historical and cultural conditions.

The evolutionary overview of school grounds in

Lithuania during the last century has been performed

by consistent analysis of different functions of school

grounds: sports fields, educational-experimental

zones, recreation areas, service zones and

representation spaces. The study of each function of

school outdoor area has been performed by applying

the three-aspect correlation method starting with the

education theory background, then linking it with the

legal regulations and correlating with

the school environment practice (design projects

and/or realised schools). The data for this analysis

includes bibliography, iconography, drawings, archive

documents. The second part of the study

deals with the results of experimental practices on

participatory design and community engagement.

The Centenary Development of School Grounds in

Lithuania

Interview of pupils, students, teachers and

empirical studies carried out during the project have

shown that school outdoor spaces do not bring any

memories or associations with the daily life of the

school. However, a few cases in the country have

shown that school communities have been actively

fighting for the reduction of school grounds and their

adaptation to other, non-educational needs. Therefore,

it can be argued these spaces are important for school

communities, but for different reasons they are

“forgotten”. This has been confirmed by other

scholars’ research as well [5]. In order to grasp the

trends and opportunities in the development of school

areas, it is worth looking at the historical origins of

different activities in the schoolyard. In general, the

following areas can be distinguished in the territory of

the school: sports, recreation, educational-

experimental, service and representational.

Plot. At the beginning of the 20 c., the Historic

Revival style dominated the schools’ architecture

[19], therefore it was customary to build urban school

buildings on the red line of the street, thus forming the

perimeter line of the block (Fig. 1). Early century’s

school parcels were relatively small.

Therefore, their usage was very intense and variety

of activities limited. In the architecture of the 1930’s,

there was a tendency to slightly distract the school

building from the street and to install the green zone

in-between. School areas were planned much bigger;

it began to be enclosed with fences. Buildings still

often formed the crossroad’s space, but stood freely in

space and did not form the perimeter of the block

anymore (Fig. 2). Such design approach prevailed

until the 1960s. Rural schools were built mostly in

accordance with the homestead tradition.

The environment of the manor schools, schools

located in former manor houses, other schools located

in former manor garden areas varied considerably in

comparison to others. Similar to the practice of the

neighbouring countries [10], schools were integrated

into the manors’ landscapes, adapted parts of existing

welfare, but also some changes were introduced.

Construction and design normative documents

(SNiP) of the 60's [27] and 70‘s [28] started strictly

regulate the composition of outdoor spaces,

sizes of different functional areas, their location and

relation to the building. To understand these changing

requirements, we have compared the regulations of

different periods of Kaunas’ high school “Saulė”,

built at different stages in 1914, 1925 and 1974, and

used for educational needs up to these days. In 1925

the school used 7.900 m² area [14]. According to the

regulations of the 60’s, the area in size of 14.700 m²

had to be given to the school. The Contemporary

Hygiene Norm [17] states just approximate quantity

of the greenery (40%) and general function zones

(sports, recreation, educational-experimental,

servicing) that need to be planned in the area.

Sports fields. One of the earliest known schools

with a separate gym building and sports ground [26]

in the present Lithuania was the Queen Louise High

School (archit. Luthje) built in 1891 in Klaipėda.

Then the discipline of physical education was

introduced in the schools of Prussia, to which

Klaipėda belonged at that time.

The major breakthrough in the country's sport and

physical education history occurred after regaining the

statehood in 1918: the first public sports ground was

constructed in 1922; in 1925 the schools’ gymnastics

contest was held in Kaunas [14]; in 1927, textbooks

and tutorials on physical education in schools [7, 8]

were first published; in 1929, the discipline of

military training was introduced in the curriculum;

in 1932, the Law on Physical Culture was adopted;

in 1934, the first state Sports University was

opened and one of the earliest methodical

recommendations for the construction of sports

fields was prepared [13];



107

Fig. 1. Talmud-Tora Vocational School, Islandijos Str.,

Vilnius, 1890, 1899–1901, archit. Kiprijonas Maculevičius,

Konstantin Korojedov. Source: LVIA_F.938.Ap.4.B.1977.

Fig. 2. Jonas Jablonskis Primary school for children of

blue-collar workers, Aušros Str. 3, Kaunas, 1931, archit.

Antanas Jokimas. Photo: L. Nekrošius, 2016.

Fig. 3. High School in Kėdainiai, 1935 (exploded in 1944),

masterplan, archit. F. Bielinskis.

Source: LCVA 1622 4 525 l 8.

Fig. 4. Sport field of primary school No 1 in Užpaliai,

Utena district, 1935.

Source: © Lithuania’s Education History Museum,

photographer unknown.

Fig. 5. Typical project of the secondary school for 964 pupils,

1962–63, master plan, archit. Leonas Mardosas.

Source: Sovietskaja architektura ezegodnik. Moskva, 1967, [2]

Fig. 6. Secondary school No 40 in Lazdynai, Erfurto Str. 23,

Vilnius, 1974, archit. Česlovas Mazūras.

Photo: L. Nekrošius, 2011.

Fig. 7. Chemistry Technical School, Naugarduko gatvė 24,

Vilnius, 1901–1902, archit. Aleksandr Bykovsky, postcard.



108

Fig. 8. Stasys Vainiūnas Art School

(unimplemented amphitheatre in the courtyard), Maironio

St. 8, Palanga, 1981–1982, archit. Irena Likšienė. Source: I. Likšienė’s personal archive.

in 1940, the PhD thesis on ''The Role of Motion in the

Educational Process'' by Lithuanian scholar Jonas

Laužikas was defended at Zurich University [4].

Sports halls and fields, in exceptional cases, even

swimming pools [23] in the school projects of the

30’s were already planned (Fig. 3). But some of these

ideas were ahead of time, consequently were not

realised or postponed. However, often schools

provided for the possibility for physical activities

(Fig. 4) much earlier than the political decisions were

1960’s and 70’s, more than 70% of the school area

had to be allocated to sports. All schools had to

contain the athletics, gymnastics, multifunctional

(basketball, volleyball, pioneerball) playgrounds (Fig.

5). made [14]. In the 1950s, a few schools without the

sports facilities were built, but situation was changing

rapidly. According to the design standards of the In

addition to this, larger schools were obligated to

construct their football fields.

The contemporary norms are not so strict. They refer

that 35–40% of the plot area need to be designed for

sports [17].

Establishment of the educational-experimental zone

in the schoolyard is likely to be linked to the country's

agricultural policy of the third decade. Then various

initiatives were introduced aimed to teach the younger

generation for advanced farming. One of the most

prominent political projects of the time was

establishment of the youth organization Young Farmers'

Clubs in 1929 [20].

Vegetable, fruit, berry and flower gardens, seed-plot,

plant breeding, zoology, meteorological observation

zones, greenhouses, gazebo for open-air classes were

precisely defined by the norms of the 1960’s and 70’s.

These zones were designed, but the results of their

implementation varied a lot.

The early schools’ active recreation areas coincided

with the sports grounds, passive – with the educational-

experimental zone. The obligation to form 3–4 separate

active rest zones for different age groups and 1 for

teenagers’ calm rest were set up in the regulations of

the1960's. In most cases, such zoning was formal and

with some exceptions (Fig. 6) it is difficult to identify

them in the courtyards of nowadays schools. Current

legislation also provides for mandatory rest areas

separate for primary and secondary school students.

Service zone is used for the maintenance transport,

storage of waste and, back in the past, also for outdoor

toilets. Beams for tethering horses of the first half of the

20 c. were changed into the small asphalted parking lots,

mainly intended for catering areas. Improved cycling and

pedestrian infrastructures of the school’s surrounding

neighbourhood today means not only the sustainable

urban communication but is understood as the promotion

of students’ physical activity [15]. Customary for rural

schools, bicycle racks started to be installed in urban

schools at the end of the 20th century and slightly began

to create a new typological element – covered bike

parking – in the 21st century.

Representation spaces usually coincide with other

functional zones; however, we would like to draw

attention to some aspects of such spaces.

According to the principle of homestead planning,

a decorative flower garden was usually cultivated

between the street and the building in rural schools.

Urban school’s gardening area traditionally was in the

backyard. When at the beginning of 20th century, the

main entrance was distracted from the street and small

public space was formed in front of it, flower garden was

moved from the backyard in here and changed its

primary function from educational-experimental to

representational (Fig. 7).

Official events (such as the beginning of the

academic year), ceremonies (graduation) as well as

community photo sessions often take place outside the

building. Historical school located in the traditional

city block usually uses its courtyard. Architects of the

second half of the 20th century paid exclusive

attention on the entrance space design. It became

usual for schools in the free-plan neighbourhoods to

have an exceptional entrance space working as a stage

during events with a piazza in front, which can

accommodate more people than the inside hall.

However, there are some experimental solutions

combining historical and modernist design approaches

(Fig. 8).

Community Needs in the Light of Building

History, Education Theory and City Policy

The demographic processes of the last decades and

the country's economic opportunities have not

stimulated the construction of new schools in

Lithuania. Most of the schools used today were built

in the 20th century. After the restoration of the

Independence (1990), the national education system

was reformed shifting from the unified secondary

education to the three-part structure (primary, basic,



109

gymnasium education). These changes substantially

corrected the needs of school communities and the

requirements of the education system for learning

spaces. The educational legislation “encourages

school communities to “invent" the school by

developing its working patterns, environments and

ways of education.” [18].

Contemporary urban and architectural

development is increasingly based on inhabitants’

participation, but the communities still desperately

need encouragement, support and know-how manuals

from experts, including architects and landscape

architects. Having identified the need for

methodology, the researchers of the Faculty of

Architecture, VGTU, have started experimental

activities in order to form the theoretical model of the

transformation of educational spaces.

A series of creative workshops have been set up to

shape the guidelines for architects and school

communities to focus on finding and implementing

the common solutions.

Five workshops were organized on different

aspects of transformation of educational environment.

Three of them focused on schools of different levels

and typologies (curators: Dolf Broekhuizen, Edita

Riaubienė, Liutauras Nekrošius): “Contemporary

Conception of Primary School” (2015), “The School

Teenagers Want to Go” (2016), “Redesigning

Technical Schools of Old Vilnius” (2017). These

events were based on similar structure, stages and

methodologies.

First of all, we appealed to architecture students’

empathy for the topic and problem through the auto-

reflections (sensual reminiscences and experiences of

their primary school; digging up teenagers’ memories

of their schooling; personal reflecting on the craft).

The second step was concerned with providing

and collecting various kinds of information on the

problem: bibliography, lectures on related topics,

excursions to particular objects, meetings with

members of school communities.

The third step was the articulation of the initial

insights into the problem, and, finally, the last step –

the elaboration of the idea, the presentation of the

solution.

The actual issues of primary school architecture

were discussed at the workshop “Contemporary

Conception of Primary School [24] (2015)

considering the fact that physical environment has the

greatest influence on an ever-evolving personality.

The area of the mass housing residential district

Lazdynai in Vilnius (built in 1974, architects Vytautas

Edmundas Čekanauskas, Vytautas Brėdikis) was

chosen for the research aiming to analyse the

transformation of its educational infrastructure and to

discuss possible changes.

The additional argument to investigate the area of

Lazdynai was the fact that this mass building structure

is the only one recognised as modernist urban heritage

in Lithuania. The preservation aspect here was a

secondary one, but it allowed for a more

comprehensive look at the values of the planned

infrastructure and transformations determined by the

changing needs of society.

The deeper analysis was performed focusing on

five primary schools of the district. These objects are

located in different architectural environments:

a few are situated in the buildings of former

kindergartens; others – in the structure of

secondary school.

During the study visits to the objects,

representatives of school communities presented in

detail the school buildings, usage, processes and

emerging needs in them, provided for the necessary

materials, but their participation in the creative

process has been little and episodic.

The workshop participants contextualised the

selected information by asking three questions. What

concepts and recommendations does the modern

educational theory provide? What does the

municipality, as the establisher of the school,

anticipate? What does the school community expect,

what dreams and ambitions do they have? Having

assessed all this, they made architectural suggestions

on how the space could be changed.

Empirical studies, conversations with

schoolchildren highlighted the school outdoors as

extinct from the memory of people, and hardly used

today. Referring to safety at school, children are

rarely allowed to enter the schoolyard; the outdoor

space is used for education only when the internal

temperature in the classes reaches unbearable level.

The physical condition of sports grounds often

does not encourage their intensive use. However,

there are a few surprising and encouraging examples.

Some schools located in dense urban environment

have minimal outdoor spaces, but they use it

intensively and in different ways.

Such insights led the participants of the workshop

to focus on rethinking of school landscapes and their

integration in educational process. Each particular

school situation is unique and therefore the scenarios

for conversion and use of their outdoor spaces for

teaching and learning purposes can vary widely. The

workshop participants identified a few solutions

oriented towards integrating the outdoor spaces

adjacent to classrooms into the educational process.

Following the logic of Herman Hertzberger [11], it

was suggested to provide an additional transit space to

the classroom – an outdoor patio or loggia tailored for

education. Assuming that unexpected spaces can

attract and motivate the learners, stimulate their

cognitive abilities, it was proposed to use the existing

roofs for recreation and education and restore the

disappeared connections between inner and outer

spaces (Fig. 9).



110

It has been observed that the successful

combination of school priorities can stimulate

operational programs that improve the use of outdoor

area. The primary school “Svaja” is overcrowded, so

its outdoor territory is intensively used for games and

recreation. The school is proud of its theatre club, so it

has been suggested to install an amphitheatre, that can

be used for occasional events, for children's games

and communication, also to strengthen the school

identity (Fig. 10).

The participants of the workshop clearly

understood the challenges faced by a primary school

situated in a large secondary school building. They

perceived the extraordinary need for a green, safe,

pleasant and interesting outdoor environment for the

young pupils and imagined it like “Oasis” in a large

unstructured school ground. It was suggested

therefore to construct a wooden terrace close to the

classes, articulated with flower beds and other plants.

The semi-open school yard could provide for different

functional zones that meet different moods,

experiences and needs: grass and other greenery – to

be in nature and with nature; amphitheatre – to be

above, to feel visible; equipped playground – to enjoy

physical activity, movement and being with others;

multifunctional area – to be free to choose the way of

being there (Fig. 11).

The other group of students suggested to arrange

the outdoor area by providing the most suitable place

for each purpose, interest or activity.

Fig. 9. The restoration of disappeared connections between inner

and outer spaces, “Chaos in the box”

Created by K. Galvydytė, I. Kundreckas, 2015.

Fig. 10. Curator D. Broekhuizen consult student near the model

of the primary school "Svaja"

A. Šlepikaitė, V. Mankevičiūtė, 2015.

Fig. 11. “Oasis”, Lazdynų secondary school.

Created by J. Jaruševičiūtė, G. Ribikauskaitė, K. Burbaitė, 2015.



111

Fig. 12. “The Open up”, Sausio 13-osios school, S.

Subačiūtė, A. Janulaitis, 2015. 1.11 playground, 1.12 art

playground, 1.13 science playground, 1.14 amphitheatre,

1.15 pavilions and pergolas, 1.16 outdoor furniture,

1.17 vegetable beds.

The school territory was understood as universe,

still unfamiliar and frightening to a child.

The arrangement of the outdoor area for the primary

school pupils was suggested as detached by natural

and architectural elements in order to define clearly

the boundaries of the safe children’s world.

The complexity of this “world” was expressed by

various places, spaces and functions: playground, art

ground, science ground, amphitheatre,

pavilions and pergolas, outdoor furniture, vegetable

beds, etc. (Fig. 12).

The results of architectural workshops that

analysed primary education environment confirmed

the hypothesis that the universal solutions fit for

everyone are not suitable for the individual-oriented

modern education. The proposals for the

transformation of school outer space allowed to see

some guidelines for change but denied the possibility

of a unified solution. The uniqueness of each situation

is determined by the identity of each school and its

community. This insight strongly indicates the

importance of school community in the process of

design and re-creation of educational environment.

Along with the research on educational architecture,

the direction of the design-build

studio approach [25] was started and the first

project implemented in the courtyard of VGTU

Architectural faculty [21]. The gained experience of

design and implementation [16] was applied

in the workshop at the catholic high school in

Lazdynai in 2016.

School Ground as a Collectively

Developed Play-scape

The paper is focused on the participatory design

cases developed in cooperation with schools mainly

located in the post-socialist residential district

Lazdynai in Vilnius, which is an example displaying

the current considerations on adaptation of the

modernist architectural legacy to nowadays and future

society’s needs.

Lazdynai is the first district in Vilnius, where the

concept of rayon or "sleeping" district was

implemented at an almost complete scope. In 1974 the

design team of Lazdynai was awarded the highest

state prize of the time – the Lenin’s Prize. Thus later

on the district was promoted as an etalon of soviet

urban design, but today its mono functionality and

structural rigidity towards the change is one of the

main issues in terms of buildings and urban public

spaces. Although the inhabitants of Lazdynai

themselves attempted to transform the semi-public

spaces on their own initiative trying to personalize

and fragment them or adapt to informal functions, but

these initiatives did not reach the main public spaces

of the district due to financing issues and, most

importantly, the lack of visions and impulses from the

community itself.

As soon as the trends of participatory processes

reached Lithuania in 2010, the idea that the

community itself with support of experts should

engage in, initiate and maintain the transformation of

its environment and the specifics of Lazdynai district

led to a noticeable concentration of activist projects

carried out by NGOs and academic institutions aiming

to activate rethinking of alternative programs of the

public space together with the community. In this

context architects also took a chance not only at

testing the participatory design in theory, but also

putting it into professional practice. Full community’s

involvement in the participatory design led by

architects as the mediators; understanding the urban

space from the perspective of its users before making

any changes; exercising the imagination as the

catalyst of rethinking and rediscovering the everyday

urban spaces were the key goals of an international

summer school "Play East!" (2016) in Lazdynai.

The summer school was organized by the Faculty

of Architecture VGTU and curators Barbara Pampe

and Vittoria Capresi (baladilab, Germany), who had

contributed the methods and expertise in improving

the courtyards of schools and transforming them into

playing landscape (playscape) through "Learning-

Move-Play-Ground" summer schools series in

Germany and Egypt. The summer school was hosted

by the Blessed Teofilius Matulionis High School



112

(former Vilnius Versmė High School) itself matching

the philosophy of the school: education in this school

is based on the tradition of St. Marie-Eugénie,

according to which the quality education

should be based on responsibility and social action,

challenges and current issues, community

feeling and cooperation.

The school's aspirations to encourage children

spending more time outdoors and the need of proper

infrastructure for outdoor education necessitated the

changes of the school ground. The user's involvement

with the school grounds is a tangible expression of the

school's philosophy and educational practice – the

philosophy and practice create the landscape [2].

Following this idea, the school’s community and

architects’ team strived to create a multifunctional

landscape representing the philosophy of the school.

Landscape as functional sculpture; as a set of game

elements; as learning space; as inspiring amorphous

shape in a monotonous setting of mass-housing meets

the expectations of the school community members in

anticipation that diversity would have a lasting

supportive effect on children's activity outdoors [3].

Understanding before making changes.

The curators of the summer school "Play East!"

adapted the methods of the participatory

design, which covered several stages: input phase;

workshop with children and teachers; design phase;

Fig. 13. Workshop with children and models of

Atmospheres.Source: “Play East!” team, 2016.

Fig. 14. Elements of the playscape: “Brick-Work”(

transferring the atmosphere of Obstacles), “Wall”

(Observing and Safety), “Tents” (Perpetual Movement),

“Hidden Elements”

(Changing Perspective) Source: “Play East!” team, 2016.

implementation phase; inauguration. During the

workshop the needs of the school were explored from

the perspective of teachers as experts, who know their

students and spaces of the school the best, are aware

of the educational process and its improvement.

Understanding the present condition and

expectations from the perspective of school

community is one of the essential aspects of the

participatory process. "Like the caution to understand

before interpreting the social world of school grounds,

many commentators strongly urge thorough

understanding before adjusting it to make changes on

the school grounds" [6]. Exploration of the school

together with its community may reveal the hidden

potential and identity of the school, therefore the

context-aware transformations rather than pre-

designed solutions are more appropriate and match

the identity of the school’s community.

Imagination exercises. The workshop with

children aimed at shifting away from the everyday

processes and spaces of the school, therefore the

exploration of the desirable atmospheres was chosen

as participatory design tactics, helping to escape the

ready-made images of the school ground and allowing

some space for uncertainties and contingencies in

design. Communication through atmospheres, in the

forms of models, installations, drawings, collages and

storytelling avoids the fixed code needs and ideas that

are often difficult to communicate or implement [22].

On the other hand, the abstract thesaurus of the

atmosphere, and the unleashed imagination trigger the

unexpected forms and functions of the space. The

Atmospheres workshop in Lazdynai was focused on

revealing the mood and scenario of The Dream Day.

Assisted by the architecture students, children

visualised their own dream days through the models

and storytelling (Fig. 13) thus uncovering the wide

range of auras and activities of their leisure.

Architect as mediator. The design phase set the

architecture students to extract the main keywords of

children dreams (e.g. safety, observation, perpetual

movement, changing perspective, obstacles) and

transfer them into the design of the playing landscape,

which in the end resulted as five landscape elements

integrated into the school ground – Wall, Brick-Work,

Balancing Track, Hidden Elements and Tents. The

design and building phases introduced the architecture

students as the future professionals to the currently

changing role of the architect as they were prompted

to act rather as creative links or moderators between

the architecture and its users, taking the responsibility

to perceive, synthesize and transfer the expectations

and needs of the community into architectural form;

furthermore, the students worked in groups and

collectively elaborated the elements of the landscape,

that resulted in the absence of the authorship and put

all the persons involved on the same level of

co-creatorship. On the other hand, involvement into



113

the full scope of school ground transformations was

crucial experience for the school’s community too, as

they went through all the design-build stages

rethinking the school, imagining, discussing the

project, finding the sponsors, building the landscape

elements themselves. Therefore, the architects had

to design the simple, low-cost playscape feasible

to efforts of the community itself and the sponsors

involved (Fig. 14), and showcase this pilot project

hoping to inspire other communities to act

“horizontally” and in anticipation that residents –

especially children and students as the upcoming

future society – will become the creative partners and

co-creators of the urban spaces.

Conclusions

The strict functional zoning of school territories

built in the 1930’s–1980’s has lost its relevance today

due to the changed mode of use. There is a need to

optimize the use of these spaces by adapting them to

several functions, seeking polyfunctionality. This is a

particularly welcome trend, when schools are located

on smaller parcels.

The analysis of development of school grounds has

discovered that a school territory in various periods

was used for physical activities and training.

Other functions emerged as complementary

and diversifying.

The historic research and results of the workshops

have shown that importance, scope and spatial

positions of functions of school grounds have been

changing; the recreation and representation

[functions] are close related and using the same area,

the representation and experimental learning

(gardening) have been matched; physical training and

sports function can be transferred into relaxation.

These exchanges and mergers indicate that school

grounds respond to the changing needs.

The research has highlighted that various

functions of the school outdoor territories have been

planned, have not been implemented or become

viable. Contemporary education theory advocates

outdoor learning, learning in unexpected spaces as a

tool for better knowledge absorption. Therefore, the

restoration of the disappeared and development of

new connections between the outer and inner

recreational spaces is a priority.

Representative greenery lost its primary

educational function, but it has a potential to be a tool

not only for basics of biology, but also plant design

and landscape architecture studies.

The occurrence of bicycle parkings in school

yards, re-establishment of links between schools and

adjacent parks should be understood as a part

of policy for sustainable mobility and

healthy environment.

Construction of open and covered outdoor

amphitheaters in the yard can lead to wider

engagement of schools as well neighborhood

communities into school life.

Participatory design-build studio is one of the

methods to achieve the up-to-date learning

environment that is collectively developed by the

students and schools’ communities. The case of

Blessed Teofilius Matulionis High School design-

build has revealed three main aspects: (1) collectively

developed playing landscape as functional sculpture;

as a set of game elements; as learning space; as

inspiring amorphous shape in a monotonous setting of

mass-housing meets the diverse expectations of the

school community, thus the diversity of landscape has

a lasting supportive effect on children's activity

outdoors. (2) Understanding of spaces and processes

of school together with its community reveal the

hidden potential and identity of the school, therefore

the context-aware transformations rather than pre-

designed solutions are more acceptable to the

community. (3) Community‘s participation at all

stages of the design-build process preconditions the

permanent maintenance and further development of

school grounds by the community itself.

References 1. Abbott, J. Sharing the City. Community Participation in Urban Management. London: Routledge, 1996. 256 p.

2. Adams, E., Learning through Landscapes: A Report on the Use, Design, Management and Development of School

Grounds. Winchester: Learning through Landscapes, 1990. 282 p.

3. Brink, L. A., Nigg, C. R., Lampe, S. M. R. et al. Influence of Schoolyard Renovations on Children's Physical Activity:

The Learning Landscapes Program. American Journal of Pulbic Health, 2010, Vol. 100(9), p. 1672–1678.

4. Bukauskienė, T. Lietuvos mokyklai 600 metų (600 years of Lithuania’s School). Vilnius: Viliaus Užtupo leidykla, 1997,

64.

5. Burke, C., Grosvenor, I. The School I’d Like: Revisited. London, New York: Routledge, 2015. 39 p.

6. Casey, T. School Grounds Literature Review, 2003. [Available at:] http://www.playscotland.org/wp-

content/uploads/assets/Documents/SSGSLiteratureReview.pdf

7. Dineika, K. Sportas mokykloje. Laun-tenisas (Sport at School. Tenis). Kaunas: Varpas, 1929. 40 p.

8. Dineikienė, P., Dineika, K. Fiziško lavinimo vadovėlis pradžios mokyklai (Physical Education Tutorial for Primary

school). Kaunas: Vilniaus spaustuvė, 1927. 156 p.

9. Fung, A. Empowered Participation. Reinventing Urban Democracy. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2004.

336 p.



114

10. Hercoga, L., Ziemeļniece, A. The Contextual Search in the Landscape Space of the School and Manor Building.

Scientific Journal of Latvia University of Agriculture Landscape Architecture and Art, 2018, Vol. 11(11), p. 62–68.

11. Hertzberger, H. The schools of Herman Hertzberger. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers, 2009. 176 p.

12. Hicker, S., Mohan, G. Participation: From Tyranny to Transformation? Exploring new approaches to participation in

development. London: Zen Books, 2004. 293 p.

13. Jankevičiūtė, G. Playing to Win: Sports Architecture. In: Architecture of Optimism. Vilnius: Lapas, 2018, p. 216–227.

14. Jaruševičius, V., Sellienė, A., Laučienė, S. Kauno “Saulės” gimnazija („Saulės“ High School in Kaunas). Kaunas:

[Taurapolis], 2013, p. 43–45.

15. Jones, N., R., Jones A., Sluijs, E., MF, van. School Environments and Physical Activity: The development and testing

of an audit tool. Health & Place, 2010, Vol. 16(5), p. 776–783.

16. Kraus, C. Designbuild Education. New York: Routledge, 2017. 240 p.

17. Bendrojo lavinimo mokyklos higienos normos ir taisyklės (Secondary School Hygiene Norms and Regulations), Lietuvos

Respublikos sveikatos apsaugos ministerij, Lietuvos higienos norma HN 21:1998. Official Gazette, 1998, No. 112,

December 12, p. 3117.

18. Geros mokyklos koncepcija (Concept of Good School). Lietuvos Respublikos švietimo ir mokslo ministerija, Įsakymas

dėl geros mokyklos koncepcijos patvirtinimo (The Order by the Minister of Education and Science of the Republic of

Lithuania), No. V-1308; Vilnius, 21.12.2015.

19. Lukšionytė-Tolvaišienė, N. Istorizmas ir modernas Vilniaus architektūroje (Historic Revival and Modern Architecture

in Vilnius). Vilnius: VDA, 2000, p. 46–49.

20. Mačiulis, D. Tautinė mokykla: žvilgsnis į tautininkų švietimo politiką (National School: a Look at the Policy of

Nationalist Education). Vilnius: Istorijos institutas, 2017. 150 p.

21. Navickienė, E., VGTU Architektūros fakulteto kieme – miško namelis (Cabin in the Courtyard of the Architecture

Faculty). Statyba ir Architektūra, 27.09.2015 [online 30.07.2018] https://sa.lt/en/architekturos-fakulteto-kieme-misko-

namelis/

22. Learn-Move-Play-Ground, Pampe B., Capresi, V. (eds.). Berlin: Jovis, 2013. 143 p.

23. Petrulis, V. Educational Architecture and the Modernisation of Society. In: Architecture of Optimism. Vilnius: Lapas:

2018, 178–191.

24. Riaubienė, E., Broekhuizen, D., VGTU. Sovietmetį menantys mokyklų pastatai: ar čia gali vystytis kūrybingos

asmenybės? (Soviet-era School Buildings: Can Creative Personalities Grow up There?). Centras [online 30.07.2018.]

http://www.interjeras.lt/naujiena/Sovietmeti_menantys_mokyklu_pastatai

25. Stonorov, T. The Design-build Studio: Crafting Meaningful Work in Architecture Education. New York: Routledge,

2018, 269.

26. Tatoris, J. Senoji Klaipėda. Urbanistinė raida ir architektūra iki 1939 metų (Old Klaipeda. Urban Development and

Architecture before 1939). Vilnius: MEL, 1994. 209 p.

27. Государственный комитет по делам строительства СССР. Строительные нормы и правила.

Общеобразовательные школы и школы-интернаты. Нормы проектирования СНиП П-Л.4-62. (Building

Regulations. Secondary Schools and Boarding Schools. Design Standards) Москва: Издательство литературы по

строительству, 1964. 34 p.

28. Государственный комитет по делам строительства СССР. Строительные нормы и правила. Нормы

проектирования Общеобразовательные школы и школы-интернаты СНиП II-65-73 (Building Regulations.

Secondary Schools and Boarding Schools. Design Standards). Москва: Стройиздат, 1974. 36 p.

INFORMATION ABOUT THE AUTHORS:

Liutauras Nekrošius – Architect, Doctor of Humanities (Architecture, VGTU, 2009), Associate Professor at

the Faculty of Architecture, VGTU. The current research fields: history and heritage protection of modern

architecture, educational architecture. E-mail: [email protected]

Edita Riaubienė – Architect, Doctor of Humanities (Architecture, VGTU, 2003), Associate Professor at the

Faculty of Architecture, VGTU. The current research fields: architectural theory, architectural heritage.

E-mail: [email protected]

Indrė Ruseckaitė – Architect, Doctor of Humanities (Architecture, VGTU, 2013), Associate Professor at the

Faculty of Architecture, VGTU. The current research fields: history and heritage protection of modernist

architecture, participatory design. E-mail: [email protected]

Kopsavilkums. Rakstā izklāstīta skolu pagalmu izglītojošā nozīme un pierādīts apgalvojums, ka šīs teritorijas ir

izmantojamas, lai izglītotu jaunās paaudzes, veicinot sadarbību apkārtējās vides veidošanā. Lietuvas skolu arhitektūras

izpēte pēdējā desmitgadē liecina par skolu pagalmu izmantošanu, kas varētu tikt raksturota kā “Aizmirstā Telpa”.

Izglītojošais personāls pievērš īpašu uzmanību mijiedarbībai starp mācīšanos un spēlēšanos. Urbānā dārzkopība, vides

novērošana, īpaši veidotas studijas ir kļuvušas par neatņemamu daļu no sekundārās un pat primārās izglītības

sistēmas. Šāda veida izglītojošām aktivitātēm ir nepieciešama atbilstoša vide. Lielākā daļa skolu Lietuvā ir būvētas

starpkaru un padomju periodos un ne vienmēr tās spēj apmierināt mūsdienu izglītības vides prasības. Arhitekti, ainavu

arhitekti un pilsētplānotāji, saistībā ar izglītībai piemērotas vides projektēšanu, raugās uz sadarbību ar sabiedrību kā

šķērsli vai formālu nepieciešamību. Kopš 2014 gada VGTU Arhitektūras fakultāte ir uzsākusi darbību kā katalizators,

veicinot diskusijas un alternatīvus redzējumus, saistībā ar skolu telpu pārmaiņām.

https://sa.lt/en/architekturos-fakulteto-kieme-misko-namelis/

https://sa.lt/en/architekturos-fakulteto-kieme-misko-namelis/

mailto:[email protected]